Tomi Laamanen

Managing multinational enterprise subsidiaries is a core facet of international business research. A shifting reality on the ground has triggered concerns around the waning relevance of the subsidiary because the MNE and its structure and processes have become increasingly complex. Consequently, more decentralized, responsive, and fluid organizational designs are now at the core of IB research. Juxtaposing recent arguments questioning subsidiary research altogether, we argue that IB scholars can explore and explain complex realities in the contemporary MNE without unnecessarily restricting the breadth of the field and giving up links to established research and theory. We reframe conversations around inward- and outward-looking perspectives, providing a path forward that emphasizes the importance of embracing the subsidiary concept in research reflecting today’s complex business environment.

Momentum theory suggests that acquisition experience leads to acquisition momentum in the form of a higher likelihood of subsequent acquisitions of the same type. However, this argument has been challenged theoretically and empirically. We reconcile conflicting predictions and findings of prior research and extend momentum theory by incorporating activity load as a novel causal mechanism to both replicate the base finding and explain deviations from it. We find that a high activity load due to increased acquisition activity acts as a counterforce to momentum, decreasing the likelihood of subsequent acquisitions of the same type. Moreover, we also find that the interplay of routines, cognitive frames, and activity load causes companies to alternate between different types of acquisitions – from small to large and from large to small – as management engages in attention modulation to preserve momentum. Taken together, our arguments and findings contribute to an improved understanding of temporal patterns of acquisition behaviour.

We investigated the role of heuristics in decision-making in infrequent and heterogeneous organizational processes. In our multiple-case study, we tracked individual managers' knowledge, how managers collectively articulated and codified knowledge, and how they used it in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) decision-making. We developed a process model that explains (a) the evolution and the interplay between heuristics and causal knowledge and (b) the implications of these processes for decision-making. More precisely, we found that some managers possessed and used rough heuristics – heuristics developed via limited or non-existent firsthand experience. Because rough heuristics were often faulty, they led to errors if used in a different context. In contrast, other managers possessed and used causal knowledge – knowledge explaining causal regularities in the environment. Causal knowledge was associated with higher quality decision-making and better performance in subsequent acquisitions. The problem that our focal companies faced was that causal knowledge often evaporated during attempts at collective articulation and codification, causing the conversion of causal knowledge into rough heuristics. We contribute to the organizational heuristics literature by improving our understanding of the role of heuristics in infrequent and heterogeneous organizational processes. At a more general level, we contribute to the capabilities development literature by identifying three paths that capabilities development can take. We also offer important implications for managers.

The dynamic equilibrium model of organizing has become an influential theoretical framework in paradox research. The model describes paradox management as tightrope-walking, as actors cope with paradoxical tensions through continuous microshifts. The underlying assumption is that once actors accept the paradox and support opposing poles in a consistently inconsistent manner, they can effectively manage organizational tensions. We argue that paradoxical tensions cannot be subsumed under managerial control in this way due to the emergent and unpredictable nature of paradoxes in organizations. Hence, in addition to needing to balance on a tightrope, the tightrope walker may find the rope suddenly pulled in an unexpected direction by a strong gust of wind. To advance theory development, we put forward the concept of dissipative equilibrium to better capture the temporary nature of balance and the continuous vigilance and interventions needed from management to (re)balance an organization in the presence of unexpected developments that are beyond management’s control.

Although organizational routines have attracted increasing attention in strategy and organization research, they have received surprisingly limited attention in competitive dynamics scholarship. Our essay seeks to advance a routine-based view of interfirm rivalry by bridging the competitive dynamics and routine literatures. We put forward a conceptual model of the routine-based view of interfirm rivalry that is centered on “competitive action routines.” The model clarifies the roles that managers play in driving a firm’s competitive behavior, challenges the assumption of routine-based rigidity in competitive behavior, and adds nuance to our understanding of managerial cognition in competitive dynamics. Moreover, the routine-based view offers new insights regarding the awareness-motivation-capability framework, and amplifies previous calls to broaden the methodological repertoire of competitive dynamics research.

Building on our review of the strategy process and practice research, we identify three ways to see the relationships between the two research traditions: complementary, critical, and combinatory views. We adopt in this special issue the combinatory view, in which activities and processes are seen as closely intertwined aspects of the same phenomena. It is this view that we argue offers both strategy practice and strategy process scholars some of the greatest opportunities for joint research going forward. We develop a combinatory framework for understanding strategy processes and practices (SAPP) and based on that call for more research on (a) temporality, (b) actors and agency, (c) cognition and emotionality, (d) materiality and tools, (e) structures and systems, and (f) language and meaning.